5 ms·
I don’t think Proof of Work should be illegal anywhere. The value is not in what is computed but in what properties it gives to the system. What should be addr
by 0xfffafaCrash 4y ago
I don’t think Proof of Work should be illegal anywhere. The value is not in what is computed but in what properties it gives to the system.
What should be addressed though is the problem of negative externalities not being priced in. This is not specific to energy usage of PoW or any other use of energy. Those producing emissions should categorically be required to foot the bill for repairing any damage done and those taxes should be put to use to that end. Once priced in, many things that otherwise commonize costs but privatize profits may prove to be not worth pursuing.
If the societal good done by certain things is worth the negative externalities, those can be explicitly and transparently funded through subsidies which offset some portion of the costs.
- nells 4y agoThere’s absolutely no way to compute the price of the damage that every ton of CO2 is going to do, so whatever value you choose is going to be arbitrary and ultimately unfair.
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoWhat’s the cost of sequestering each ton of CO2? $30? $90? Prohibitively high for some purposes? Well that seems like a relatively good place to start. Having a positive number adjustable based on large scale statistics does a hell of a lot more to fix market incentives than pricing it at a constant $0 and banning one specific thing (in a way which can’t even be enforced) as a political gimmick.
- nells 4y agoYou can also price it at $0 and NOT ban it.
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoSure, but that does nothing to help with the tragedy of the commons caused by unaddressed negative externalities…
- nells 4y agoThis is more like the politician's syllogism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoExcept it actually addresses a serious problem on two fronts 1) reducing the ability to profit off of actions that cause environmental damage thereby aligning the market interest to reduce such actions 2) funding the investment in reversing the damage whereas your suggestion above is doing literally nothing to help…
- piva00 4y agoAnd why would you price it at $0 if it's already known it does cause damages. Just because you can't fairly price it doesn't mean it costs zero, that's an absurd logic...
- danuker 4y agoA fair minimum tax is one that ensures we stay below catastrophic per-capita emissions, as estimated by the IPCC, created exactly for understanding climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...
- germandiago 4y agoWhy I have to believe this report when I do not see even accurate weather forecasts one week ahead in many cases? I really think that the possibility of obtaining the wrong conclusions are much higher than getting it right, yet the consequences of putting a ton of restrictions is really harmful for many people, especially in developing countries.
- danuker 4y agoThis report is the outcome of thousands of scientists collaborating. What it predicts for developing countries is disaster, which we already see. More droughts in the summer combined with floods in spring/autumn. This leads to food insecurity and ecosystem disruption, which will be more harmful than not doing anything. Weather is hard to predict short-term, but the long-term trends (i.e. climate) are visible.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agohttps://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-models-predictions-intermediate.htm https://skepticalscience.com/weather-forecasts-vs-climate-mo...
- actuallyalys 4y agoWhy do I have to believe my math teacher when he says he knows the distribution of rolling a pair of dice 1000 times when he cannot even predict the next roll of the dice?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoRight, this includes pricing it at zero which is what we're doing now.
- woodruffw 4y agoAt least in the US, we’ve yet to see any of the social good promised to us by PoW schemes (or cryptocurrencies, more generally). Instead, we’ve seen a lot of diminished trust in civic and financial institutions, plus a lot of unnecessary carbon emissions. Given the depth and breath of the costs, banning the use of fossil fuels in PoW schemes doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable. Especially given the broader social goal of reducing fossil fuel use wherever possible.
- RedlineTriad 4y agoI think I have seen a CTF before where you have to solve a quick PoW to get access to the server. Just as an anti-botting measure. So there are certainly uses for PoW, but I agree they are few and far between.
- RedlineTriad 4y agoI actually just remembered where I saw it, it was from a LiveOverflow video: https://youtu.be/Vgdhlh6evjI?t=51 https://youtu.be/Vgdhlh6evjI?t=51
- 0xfffafaCrash 4y agoI’m not arguing about the value of crypto here. Personally I think blockchains are vastly overvalued and it is mostly hype/speculation and fraudsters using FOMO are rampant. That’s a separate issue though and should be treated as such. There are plenty of things I think people over-value. I may think that buying cars or living in places where you would need them is overvalued, but I won’t argue for banning those. People can form their own opinions on how much they value different things. They shouldn’t however profit from not cleaning up their own messes and having others foot the bill.
- germandiago 4y agoBlockchain is a solid technology for distributed stuff. The technology itself is solid. Even Paypal owner said and faced people in Davos forum when they challenged him to say it would be their bet in the future.